Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
Now you seem to have forgotten all about it. What is it about evolution that makes it's adherents unable to follow a train of thought?
I haven't forgotten about it. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why identifying the first life forms and how they got here is relevant to what happened after they were here. You keep saying it is, but you don't offer any support.